FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 38 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-0 00 01 -WT M-GRS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHRIS TOPHER ALLEN W ILLIAMS, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ch ris to ph er Al le n Wil li am s ap pe al s h is two co nc urren t 4 8- m on th sen te nc es

aft er a ju ry

fou ndhi m

gu il ty of ai di ng an d abe tt in g M ari o West on to co m m ittwo ba nkrob be rie s, i n v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. § 21 13 (a). At t ria l, Will ia m s t es ti fie d th at , alt ho ug h h e dro ve W es to n t o t he ba nk s, h e d idno t kno w th atW es to n in te nd edto , or i n fa ctdi d, ro b t he ba nk s u nt il a dye pac k e xp lo de d i n the car as th ey were ab ou t t o d riv e away from th e se co ndba nk . On ap pe al , W il li am s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby im po si ng a two -le ve l o bs tru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 forco m m it ti ng pe rjury at h is tri al .

“ W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs ne ces sary for anob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t b as edonpe rjury andacco rdgre atde fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sin gh , 29 1 F .3d 75 6, 7 63 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on , ell ip si s, an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Sect io n “ 3C 1.1 pro vi de s fo r a two l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r de fen dant s wh o wil lfu ll y ob st ru ctor i m

pe de , or a tt em

ptto ob st ru ctor i m

pe de , th e adm in is tra ti on of jus ti ce dur in g t he co ur se of t he in ve st ig at io n, p ro se cu ti on , or s en te nc in g o f th e in st an t o ffen se of c on vi ct io n.” Id. at76 2– 63 (ci ta ti on , ell ip si s, an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) ; s ee U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. The co m m en ta ry to § 3 C1 .1 m ak es cle ar tha t t he en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s wh enth e d efen da ntco m m it s p erjury

du rin g h is tri al . U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1, co m

m en t. (n .4(b )). Inord er fo r a co urt t o fi ndth ata de fen da nt

2pe rjure d h im se lf: “ (1 ) th e te st im on y m us t b e und er o ath o r affi rm at io n; (2) th e te st im on y m us t b e fal se ; (3 ) th e te st im on y m us t b e m at eri al ; an d (4 ) th e te st im on y m us t b e g iv enwith t he wil lfu l i nt en t t o p ro vi de fal se tes ti m on y an d n otas ares ul t of a m is ta ke , con fu si on , or faul ty m em ory .” Sin gh , 29 1 F .3dat 7 63 n.4 . Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t Will iam s co m m it te d p erjury

by de li be rat el y

pro vi di ng un tru th fu l t es ti m on y at h is tri al in anatt em

ptto av oi d g ui lt . Co nt rary to Will ia m s’s ar gu m en t, the di st ric t co urt d idno t m ak e th is fin di ng m erel y be cau se th e jury retu rn eda gu il ty verd ic t af te r he tes ti fie d i n h is own de fen se . Rath er, the co urt i nd ep en de nt ly fou ndth athi s t es ti m on y was n ottru th fu l, em ph as iz in g t ha t: W il li am s h ada pr io r as so ci at io n wi th W es to n, wh o h adrece nt ly be enrel eas edfro m

pri so n; when W es to n e nt eredth e b an ks , W il li am s p ark edin a m an ne r th atco nc eal edhi s ca r an d a ll owe d fo r a s pe edy esc ap e; W il li am s d idno t st op dri vi ng when th e dy e p ackex pl od ed ; an d Wil li am s was no t a n ai ve pe rs on in li gh t o f hi s co ll eg e educ at io n a ndservi ce i n t he Mari ne Co rp s. We furt he r po in t ou t t ha t a s pe ci al ag en t wi th th e Fed eral Bu reauof I nv es ti ga ti on tes ti fie d a t t ria l th atW il li am s ad m it te d kno win g West on ’s tru e p ur po se an d a ct in g a s West on ’s dr iv er af te r th e fi rs t i nc id en t. In su m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fin di ng th atW il li am s co m m it te d p erjury , andwe th eref or e aff irm th e co urt’s two -le ve l en hanc em en t an d Wil li am s’s s en te nc es . AFFIRMED. 3